Pritham Dev vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioner claims the benefit of ad hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of pension and increments. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No. 36 of 2010, Sita Ram v. State H.P, decided on 15.7.2010.

Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits that he would file an appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for him to do so.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents concerned to examine the matter, after verifying the facts, in the light of the judgment, referred to above and take appropriate action thereon, within a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment, referred to above.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.